This weekend there will be science marches around the globe. Scientists and science proponents will gather to provide a visible sign of support for work that benefits the public, the environment, and the world in innumerable ways. The march has been highly publicized – rightfully so, because it serves as a reminder that scientific research and scientists can be threatened in a variety of ways that can have consequences with breadth and depth that should be of concern for society as a whole.

This week there will also be another event that has potential for consequences for science and public health. But it is neither a public event, nor one that has been publicized.

The private event is a workshop titled, “The necessity of the use of non-human primate models in research.” The workshop is supported by Johns Hopkins University and is organized by Prof. Jeff Kahn in the Berman Institute for Bioethics, with participants that include philosophers, bioethicists, a leader of the Humane Society of the US, veterinarians, and scientists– all by invitation only (see roster in workshop agenda below). Its stated goals and approach are: “To help address the issues of the use of NHPs in research, we are convening this working group to examine the science, ethics, and policy aspects of the use of NHPs in biomedical and behavioral research and testing, with the goal of identifying consensus findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The focus of the working group will be to evaluate the current and potential future uses of NHP models, drawing on the approach used in the 2011 IOM Report “Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity” (IOM, 2011).

The group lists as their objective: “The product(s) of the working group process will be a report or series of reports based on the working group’s expert analysis, which will include principles and criteria for assessing the necessity of the use of NHPs in research.” (emphasis added)

Detail is here:

In other words, the working group, privately convened, is intent on replicating the 2011 IOM process applied to chimpanzees in order to produce their own principles and criteria for assessing nonhuman primate research broadly. This process should cause grave concern for scientists and for the public who rely on research conducted with nonhuman primates.

The scientific community has publicly weighed in on the necessity of primate research. Most recently, the National Institutes of Health convened a working group to consider nonhuman primate research and concluded “that the oversight framework for the use of non-human primates in research is robust and has provided sufficient protections to date.” Similarly, a letter from over 400 scientists, including Nobel Laureates, rejected a claim from notable public figures that neuroscience research with non-human primates is no longer useful. The hundreds of scientists argued that, “primate research was still critical for developing treatments for dementia and other debilitating illnesses.” ()

Consideration of the ethical justification for research and of the care for animals in research occurs at many levels and in public space. Public health, including the interests of patients and of society as a whole, is integral to those decisions. The scientific community provides expert knowledge about what types of studies are needed for progress in the basic understanding of biology, brain, behavior, and disease and also about how to move forward with new prevention, intervention, and treatment to address health challenges. Funding agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health, are charged by the public to make decisions about science and do so through a process that involves multiple layers of expert review. Federal agencies also oversee research and standards of care for humans and animals involved in studies and provide opportunities for the public to comment on standards and to benefit from decisions.

The private workshop has the appearance of being secretive while also directly opposing the processes in place for responsible public decision-making. As such, it appears to be yet another attempt to influence decisions about science without adequately representing either public interests or the breadth and depth of expertise in the scientific community. Without adequate scientific representation the workshop conclusions cannot be taken as adequately representative of the current state of scientific knowledge. Without adequate representation of the public agencies that safeguard societal interests in scientific and medical progress the workshop conclusions cannot be taken as representative of fact-informed, balanced consideration of research.

Finally, without consideration informed by understanding the fundamental characteristics of the scientific process, the workshop conclusions will only reflect an agenda biased to reach a particular conclusion. As it is framed, it appears that the question of “necessity” is one that cannot account well for the role of basic research, of uncertainty, and of the difference between decisions based in a particular set of values and decisions about the best scientific course of action to answer questions and advance understanding of human and animal health.

For all of these reasons, the reports emanating from this private workshop must be critically examined with healthy skepticism, rather than taken as an authoritative account. We remain concerned that the products of a workshop will serve to advance an agenda that is harmful to public interests in scientific research.

[Note: If you would like to sign on to this letter please add your name to the comments].

Linda C. Cork, D.V.M, Ph.D, Emeritus Professor of Comparative Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University (Senior member of the National Academy of Medicine; Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists)

Robert Desimone, Ph.D., Director, McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT, Doris and Don Berkey Professor of Neuroscience

Patrice A. Frost, D.V.M, President of, and signing on behalf of, the Association of Primate Veterinarians

Michael E. Goldberg, MD, David Mahoney Professor of Brain and Behavior in the Departments of Neuroscience, Neurology, Psychiatry, and Ophthalmology
Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, and Senior Attending Neurologist, New York Presbyterian Hospital. (Past chair, Society for Neuroscience Committee on Animal Research)

Katalin M. Gothard, MD, PhD, Professor of Physiology, The University of Arizona

James Rowlett, PhD, University of Mississippi Medical Center (Chair, American Psychological Association Committee on Animal Research Ethics)

Mar Sanchez, PhD, Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine; Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Emory University (Chair, Society for Neuroscience Committee on Animal Research)

Dr. Starzl, a pioneer in the field of surgery and the “father” of organ transplantation in humans, was the first surgeon to perform a human liver transplant.

The liver is a remarkable organ, although more specifically it is a gland. It is essential to the functioning of the human body and is involved in metabolism, the production of hormones, detoxification — to name a few of its . Unlike some of the other organs in the human body — of which we have two, such as the kidneys — there is no redundancy for the liver. For example, if one kidney fails the other kidney can compensate for the loss of function, and in many cases people with one kidney can live a . In contrast, in cases of liver failure the only way to continue living would be liver transplantation; although in the short term — usually while waiting for a liver transplant — liver dialysis may be used. However, the liver is quite remarkable, and unlike many other organs possesses the capacity to , even if as much as 50 to 75% of the organ is damaged. Chronic liver disease, lasting more than six months, is debilitating and if not assessed early and treated (where possible) leads to death. It is that over 50 million people are impacted from chronic liver disease.

Dr. Starzl’s work on human organ transplants was based on his earlier fundamental (basic) research in dogs. Unaware then of the potential application to humans, Dr. Starzl was investigating the role of nutrient rich blood and its contribution to liver health. Dr. Starzl formulated this question based on a lecture by Dr. Stuart Welch in 1957, who described an experiment where he had grafted an extra liver into a dog. In this experiment, blood left the grafted liver via the same system as the original liver, while the system bringing blood to the liver was different. Dr. Starzl hypothesized that the reason Dr. Welch’s transplant failed was a consequence of the different blood supply which brought blood to the liver.

Image courtesy of the University of Pittsburgh

In his subsequent investigations, Dr. Starzl developed and — with his first success (survival after the operation) occurring in 1958. Between then and 1963, when the first human liver transplantation occurred, much was being performed into immunosuppression by Dr. Roy Calne — also in dogs. This research was integral to the organ transplant field. Without understanding immunosuppression, the body would reject the donor organ; rendering the transplant useless. This pioneering work, in conjunction with Dr. Starzl’s own work, led to the first attempt at a human liver transplant in 1963. This first transplant was not successful, with the patient dying during the operation. Subsequent operations also resulted in patient death within a few weeks. However, those deaths provided evidence that the donor liver was able to function in the recipient’s body.

Dr. Starzl continued to refine and update his method, later moving his investigations to pigs — grafts from pigs were better tolerated by the human recipient. Then in 1967, he reopened his program and performed the first successful human liver transplant. Mortality after the procedure decreased over time, and “more than half of the liver-transplant patients who underwent surgery in 1998 were alive ten years later, and in 2009, almost 50,000 Americans carried a transplanted liver” (Lasker Foundation).

In 2012, Dr. Starzl and Roy Calne were honoured with the for their pioneering work in liver transplantation – “an intervention that has restored normal life to thousands of patients with end-stage liver disease”.

Complete liver replacement in the dog. The fact that the recipient was a dog rather than a human is identifiable only by the multi-lobar appearance of the liver. Image from

Dr. Starzl was a brilliant scientist with a prolific career; over 2200 articles, 26 honorary degrees, and thousands of lives helped/saved by his work. We have previously written about this here; discussing him receiving the Lasker award. Similar to that post, we recommend reading about Dr. Starzl and his remarkable life . We also encourage our readers to reflect upon his work, and the remarkable progress that was made using non-human animals for research. In particular, much of his pioneering work was derived from fundamental research investigating surgical procedures in dogs and his later work, refining the method, involved other non-human animals: pigs and baboons. It is often difficult to estimate the prospective benefit of research performed in non-human animals — but Dr. Starzl’s work is a great example of the potential reach of such research.

Wolfram Schultz – Professor of Neuroscience and Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellow at the University of Cambridge

Collectively, their work examines the ability of humans and animals to link rewards to events and actions. This capacity has been a foundation of our survival, but can also be the root of many neurological and psychiatric disorders, such as addiction, compulsive behaviour and schizophrenia. In order for the successful survival and reproduction of a species, an animal must be able to make decisions that avoid danger and bring benefits (such as food, shelter, etc.). T decision-making requires predicting outcomes from environmental clues and previously learned responses. For instance, certain smells may indicate that an animal should prepare to chase prey, or to avoid a fruit item. The brain plays a key role in this decision making and learning, and at the centre of this is the neurotransmitter .

Wolfram Schultz

In the 1980s, developed a way of recording the activity of neurons in the brain that use dopamine to transmit information. He found that the dopamine neurons would respond whenever a monkey was given fruit juice reward. Schultz then showed the animals different visual patterns; whenever a certain pattern was shown, the monkey would receive a reward. After a time the dopamine neurons began to respond to the visual pattern, rather than the juice reward (response to the juice reward itself declined over time). Conversely, when no reward was given (after the correct pattern was shown), the dopamine neuron activity decreased below normal levels. If the reward was given at another time or was bigger than expected, the dopamine neuron activity would spike (1). This was the first clear demonstration of the neurological basis of one cornerstone of learning theory in Comparative and Behavioural Psychology; (2).

Building on Schultz’s work, found the pattern of activity from dopamine neurons described by Schultz resembled the ‘reward prediction error’. This signal is the difference between predicted and actual reward resulting from an action or event. It continuously updates according to the result of new events and outcomes. Dayan would go on to work with Schultz to create computational models investigating how the brain uses information to make predictions and how this information is updated when new or contrasting information is presented.

Peter Dayan

Schultz explains the reward prediction error and resulting learning in the following analogy:

I am standing in front of a drink-dispensing machine in Japan that seems to allow me to buy six different types of drinks, but I cannot read the words. I have a low expectation that pressing a particular button will deliver my preferred blackcurrant juice (a chance of one in six). So I just press the second button from the right, and then a blue can appears with a familiar logo that happens to be exactly the drink I want. That is a pleasant surprise, better than expected. What would I do the next time I want the same blackcurrant juice from the machine? Of course, press the second button from the right. Thus, my surprise directs my behavior to a specific button. I have learned something, and I will keep pressing the same button as long as the same can comes out. However, a couple of weeks later, I press that same button again, but another, less preferred can appears. Unpleasant surprise, somebody must have filled the dispenser differently. Where is my preferred can? I press another couple of buttons until my blue can comes out. And of course I will press that button again the next time I want that blackcurrant juice, and hopefully all will go well.

Which button to push?

What happened? The first button press delivered my preferred can. This pleasant surprise is what we call a positive reward prediction error. “Error” refers to the difference between the can that came out and the low expectation of getting exactly that one, irrespective of whether I made an error or something else went wrong. “Reward” is any object or stimulus that I like and of which I want more. “Reward prediction error” then means the difference between the reward I get and the reward that was predicted. Numerically, the prediction error on my first press was 1 minus 1/6, the difference between what I got and what I reasonably expected. Once I get the same can again and again for the same button press, I get no more surprises; there is no prediction error, I don’t change my behavior, and thus I learn nothing more about these buttons. But what about the wrong can coming out 2 weeks later? I had the firm expectation of my preferred blackcurrant juice but, unpleasant surprise, the can that came out was not the one I preferred. I experienced a negative prediction error, the difference between the nonpreferred, lower valued can and the expected preferred can. At the end of the exercise, I have learned where to get my preferred blackcurrant juice, and the prediction errors helped me to learn where to find it.

Professor ’s work has involved imaging the human brain in order to understand the mechanisms for learning and decision-making. Advancing the work of Schultz and Dayan, he showed that the reward prediction error can account for how humans learn, and the role that dopamine plays within it. He has collaborated with Dayan for the past decade to investigate human motivation, variations in happiness, and human gambling behaviour.

Ray Dolan

Schultz continues to study both animals and humans, using neuroimaging to study changes in neuron signals in Parkinson’s patients, smokers and drug addicts. The more we understand the process which leads people to take certain actions, the better positioned we are to intervene.

“The judges concluded that the discoveries made by Wolfram Schultz, Peter Dayan and Ray Dolan were crucial for understanding how the brain detects reward and uses this information to guide behaviour. This work is a wonderful example of the creative power of interdisciplinary research, bringing together computational explanations of the role of activity in the monkey brain with advanced brain imaging in human beings to illuminate the way in which we use reward to regulate our choices and actions. The implications of these discoveries are extremely wide-ranging, in fields as diverse as economics, social science, drug addiction and psychiatry”.

Primate research remains today an invaluable tool for comparative research into human health and disease. While other animals remain useful as models for such investigations, non-human primates are arguably the best species to be used for such investigations due to their remarkable similarity to humans. The research performed by Schultz, and built upon by Dayan and Dolan, highlight this simple fact and perhaps also exemplifies why critical consideration against the use of non-human primates for research is needed. The Brain Prize also shows how animal and non-animal methods are often used together to build our understanding of how the brain works.

A recent article in the Atlantic, “” is making headlines. The journalist claims that in an article published in early February, titled “”, fancy new technologies have led the field of neuroscience astray. The original scientific publication does draw attention to an area of neuroscience that neglects behavior, and outlines the importance of measuring behavior and the brain. However, behavior is not necessary in all areas of neuroscience, and adding behavior to some neuroscience studies could be problematic. Furthermore, the overall goal of the scientific publication was only to suggest that the field of neuroscience is lacking in scientists interested in studying the whole brain rather than the just studying the sum of its parts.

The field of neuroscience is diverse. Take for example the 9 themes at the Society for :

Development

Neural Excitability, Synapses, and Glia [Neurophysiology]

Neurodegenerative Disorders and Injury

Sensory Systems

Motor Systems

Integrative Physiology and Behavior

Motivation and Emotion

Cognition

Techniques [Technologies]

Glancing over these themes it is apparent that many scientists specialize in different types of neuroscience. Thus, some neuroscientists may study behavior and some may not need to study behavior. For example, neuroscientists investigating questions about technologies or neurophysiology may not need to study behavior at all — it depends on the question. Those only interested in the integration of physiology and behavior would study both the brain and behavior. And those studying cognition or motor systems might conduct experiments on behavior without directly measuring the brain. Whether neuroscientists study brain and/or behavior depends on the research questions they are asking.

Although both publications neglected to discuss the diversity of neuroscience, the main theme of the scientific publication was to change the way scientists interested in the integration of physiology and behavior approach their research questions. Too many neuroscientists focus on using as many new technologies as possible, and then use behavior as an afterthought. The issue here is that some of these new technologies are not yet well understood. Thus, scientists’ research questions using these technologies could be misguided.

Furthermore, behavior is a separate area of research on its own and should never be treated as an afterthought. Thus, the authors suggest that neuroscience needs more interdisciplinary scientists who understand and study the relationships between brain and behavior. It needs scientists that can merge all areas of the field.

All neuroscientists however, no matter their specific question, will help advance the field in different ways. And all neuroscientists do not need to study behavior. However, Interdisciplinary scientists in particular may set the stage for understanding the whole animal and how the brain operates within it. Furthermore, these scientists may help increase the translation of research from animal to human.

The problem of neuroscience without interdisciplinary scientists

A possible issue with scientists only studying one part of the animal (i.e. the brain) is that they neglect the rest of the animal. The authors suggest many neuroscientists only interested in the brain use a top-down approach (brain-behavior) to infer how behavior operates — and this is problematic. A recent demonstrates the potential flaws in a top-down approach. Briefly, computer scientists tested whether the processes of three classic videogames could be inferred by only studying the microprocessor that operated the videogames. In contrast to the brain, the scientists already understood how this computer system operates. After much investigation of the hardware of the microprocessor and how it functions, it remained unclear how the processes in the videogames operated. Thus, by using a top-down approach to understand behavior we will not be able to understand the brain

The bigger problem with measuring the brain and inferring behavior without studying behavior is that you are only studying one part of the animal. Consider the blind men and the elephant:

Quite simply, if I am blind-folded and given an elephant’s ear then I may think it is a fan. For me to understand and determine that I am holding an elephant’s ear, I would need to investigate the whole elephant — beyond a small part and beyond all parts individually. Interdisciplinary scientists study the “whole elephant.”

However, only studying the ear of an elephant isn’t completely problematic. I can measure what it is composed of, stick electrodes in it to see how it responds, pour different chemicals on it to see how it reacts, measure how it grows over time, test it in different scenarios etc. Thus, I can learn many different aspects about this so called fan. However, what I cannot do is infer its function or purpose without considering the whole elephant. Also, I may be unable to determine which findings are related to the potential functions, and which findings are not related to the potential functions.

The elephant and the blind men, also apply to all experiments using animal models for understanding human biology. If I do not investigate or consider the whole “elephant” I may never determine that the “ear” I am looking at has a similar function to “ears” in many other animals. More generally, if I only study neural circuitry in a mouse without considering the mouse as a whole (anatomy, organs, cells, behavior, environment, development, evolution, etc.) then it won’t help me determine how — or if – the neural circuitry may function similarly in the human.

Development is particularly important — and often forgotten — ­when studying the whole animal. You cannot just study the “ear” of the “elephant” at a specific time point in a specific environment because the structure or function may change over time. Consider the development of a frog:

In the tadpole stage the frog has a long tail for swimming and gills for breathing underwater. As it develops into an adult frog, however, the tail is reabsorbed and the frog exchanges its gills for lungs. Developmental context is necessary for understanding the whole animal.

The necessity of neuroscience with interdisciplinary scientists

Interdisciplinary scientists study both neural circuitry and behavior to understand the processes of the brain. However, this does not mean that they study parts of the brain, then study some behaviors, and understand the system. It also does not mean that they take a top-down approach (brain to behavior) or bottom-up approach (behavior to brain) — the choice here should depend on the specific research question. Interdisciplinary scientists study both brain and behavior at the same time. By studying both at the same time they can see how behavior emerges from neural circuitry and how neural circuitry emerges from behavior. The two are dependent on one another, they are not separate.

Consider this optical illusion:

If I just look at the picture on the left, I might only see a chalice and begin describing all of its visual properties and then infer its function. However, if I look at the picture on the right then it might become apparent that the picture is both a chalice and two people looking at each other. If I have too narrow of a focus — only studying the chalice — then I completely miss understanding that this is an optical illusion. Understanding the whole is important, and one part is not the greater than the other.

However, as mentioned earlier when trying to identify the function of an elephant’s ear, if I do not have a starting point for inferring function or mechanism then I could be asking the wrong questions. This is the point that the authors in the original scientific publication also make. If you do not study the behavior of the animal or process that you are interested in, then you will be asking all the wrong questions concerning neural circuitry. One cannot understand the game of chess by just analyzing all the pieces and the board. You must first observe how the game is played, and then you can determine what makes the pieces and the board important.

This is example of watching chess being played first and then analyzing the pieces and the board, represents a top-down approach. However, as already mentioned, the approach you take is particular to the question you are interested in. Different approaches give you different answers. And in the unknown world of brain and behavior, we may really not know enough to properly infer how something functions.

Regardless, this example of chess also applies to all experiments using animal models. For example, I might have learned how to play chess on a large and heavy wooden board with specially molded iron pieces. And as long as I understand the rules and processes of chess, then I can play chess on any board — be it big or small, plastic or wood, physical or virtual. But if I spend all my time studying the chess pieces and never watching how the game is played, then it might be difficult for me to identify which chess piece does what on a different chess set. Just like it would be difficult for me to determine which brain areas of a mouse might be analogous to which brain areas in a human without measuring behavior.

The authors also explain that multiple neural circuits may be responsible for a single behavior, and a single neural circuit may be responsible for multiple behaviors. This further complicates the issue of studying one part of the animal over the other. Thus, one specific neural circuit does not map to one specific behavior.

In conclusion, the neuroscientists who published the original scientific article are correct: behavior is necessary and you must study it if you want to understand the brain. However, all the fancy techniques neuroscientists have developed, independent of behavior, help us ask specific questions about neural circuitry and about behavior. Also, all scientists experimenting on animals —not just neuroscientists — should understand the arguments used in this paper and apply it to their own experiments. This will help us better understand how findings in one species might relate to findings in another, and thus help the translation of all science using animal models.

The statistics were submitted to the European Commission last week. We have summarised the data below. We compare that to the also available on their website.

Animal research in Germany for 2015 by species [Click to Enlarge]

Germany used 2,799,961 animals in 2015, with an overall decrease (15.5%) in animal use when compared to 2014. Similar to other countries, mice remain the most popular species used in animal research, with an increase in use of 5% compared to 2014. Fish, birds, other rodents and other non-mammals saw sizable percentage decreases in their overall use compared to 2014, albeit compared to the total number of animals used, these relative differences are still small. Fish in particular saw a decrease because of differences in reporting between 2014 and 2015. According to the (BMEL), in , “708,462 “other fish” (including about 563,600 fish larvae) were reported (21.38 percent). By , however, the share of animals in the “other fish” category was only 2.88% (80,777 animals).”

Mice, rats and fish account for 91% of all animal procedures, rising to 95% if you include rabbits. Similarly to 2014, Germany remains one of the few European countries where rabbits are the fourth most commonly used species in 2015. Dogs, cats and primates accounted for 0.31% of all animals, despite a doubling in the number of animals used for these species.

Click to Enlarge

This year was the second year where there was retrospective assessment and reporting of severity (i.e. reporting how much an animal actually suffered rather than how much it was predicted to suffer prior to the study). showed that 43% of procedures were classed as , 17% as , 4% as , and 36% as , where an animal is anaesthetised for surgery, and then not woken up afterwards. Compared to 2014, there were some noticeable shifts in relation to severity. While the number of procedures which caused animals moderate and severe levels of stress and distress decreased, the numbers of procedures that were terminal increased.

Click to Enlarge

Looking at the historical data, we see that like several other countries, the number of animal experiments increased steadily between 2000-2012. The sharp increase in 2014 followed by a decrease in 2015, reflect in part differences in the accounting procedures used between 2014 and 2015. Thus, it is too early to say whether the fall in 2015 is a one-off or a sign of a future drop-off in animal experiments. It is likely that this drop also partly reflects a decrease in funding to science during the recession and economic turmoil of the past few years. Next year’s data may provide some insight into whether and how this trend will continue.

Trends in German animal experiments 2000-15. Click to Enlarge.

Other interesting information provided by the includes:

8% of animals used were bred within the EU [Table 3]

The main purpose of research was “Basic Research” (58.7%), followed by “Regulatory use and Routine production” (22.5%), “Maintenance of colonies of established genetically altered animals, not used in other procedures”, “Translational and applied Research” (13.6%), and all other uses (5.2 %) [Table 9]

Two-thirds of the total dogs, cats and primates were used for Regulatory testing [Table 9]

40% of animals were genetically altered, compared with 60% which were not. Over 98% of the genetically altered animals were mice or zebrafish [Table 20]

For further information about animal research (Tierversuche) in Germany see our background briefing, available in and .

Speaking of Research

2015 Statistics:

2014 Statistics:

N.B. Some our more eagle-eyed readers may have noted the 2014 statistics referenced in this article do not correspond to those we published a year ago. This is because the German authorities changed the counting methodologies for 2015 and re-released an altered 2014 statistics so that they could be fairly compared to the 2015 data.

Do animals have the ability to suffer?

I think that, strictly speaking, most animals species do not have the ability to suffer. These will include animals like corals, jellyfish, starfish, worms, clams, snails and insects that comprise millions of species with nervous systems so small that cannot possibly endow them with enough consciousness to suffer. In comparison, the species of chordates that can be said to suffer are a tiny minority. My work is in pain neuroscience, where we make quite nuanced distinctions between suffering, distress, pain and nociception. We know that many species have nociception, but we cannot infer from that that they feel pain, and even less that they suffer. Other show the same physiological signs of distress that we have (elevated levels of cortisol in the blood), but this doesn’t necessarily mean that they suffer. There are animals that clearly do not have nociception, pain, distress or suffering, like sponges. On the other end of the cognitive scale, it is clear that humans do suffer. At what point in the evolutionary tree the ability to suffer appears is not an easy question to answer.

Philosophers have been speaking of suffering as an absolute, something that exist in itself. In fact, neuroscience points out that suffering cannot exist without consciousness and is not independent of certain cognitive abilities like emotions and memory. An animal can only be said to be suffering inasmuch as it is conscious of this suffering, which links the problem of suffering with the “hard problem” of consciousness. This is because an unconscious animal would be just an automaton, something that responds to stimuli without having a subjective experience of those stimuli. As long as a being is self-conscious, including having extended consciousness, the life of that being has value of its own. So, like it often happens when we look at the living world, there is a gradient of minds between complete automatons and fully conscious human beings. Consciousness, and its attending capacities to suffer and be happy, develops gradually with evolution. So suffering, like consciousness, had to develop gradually during evolution. I doubt that there is a threshold, a hard line, with suffering on one side and not suffering on the other, so we have to wrap our minds around the fact that some animals have more capacity for suffering than others. Therefore, different species should be treated according to their mental capacities, which is, if you want, a hard form of speciesism. But it is what we do all the time, for example, when we kill the fleas that afflict our dog. Clearly, the dog has more moral standing in our eyes than the fleas.

In addition to consciousness, I think that suffering requires the presence of a self because otherwise the existence of the subjective experience of suffering doesn’t make sense. This is a variant of the problem of consciousness: do non-human animals have a self? That’s doubtful. Maybe apes and dolphins do, rats and mice probably don’t. But, again, that is highly speculative. Hence, there has to be a scale of suffering. In that scale, humans are capable of much deeper suffering (and much deeper happiness) because we can see ourselves as selves with an existence extending in time, so we not only suffer in the present, but we can see that we have suffered in the past and that we will suffer in the future. Without episodic memory and extended consciousness, animals do not have selves with that continuity in time.

An endangered fox in the California Channel Islands

Questioning the ability of animals to suffer doesn’t mean that scientists are looking for a justification to inflict pain on animals. Rather, here scientists face two different moral imperatives. The first is the fundamental dictate of science of looking for the truth unhindered by cultural and societal biases. This leads us to examine the questions of animal pain and suffering in an objective way. The second moral imperative is not to be cruel to animals that can potentially suffer. It is because of this and the cautionary principle that we treat animals like rats and mice as if they can suffer, even when we don’t know for sure that they can. However, we do know with absolute certitude that humans can suffer, which is an additional argument to put human suffering before putative animal suffering. Therefore, it is morally justifiable to use animals in biomedical research to alleviate human suffering, while at the same time taking all possible measures to minimize the distress of animals involved in research.

We need a definition of suffering for many practical matters and not just for animal research. Of course, we should treat animals, and even plants, with respect and not harm less for frivolous reason. But sometimes it is necessary to harm animals. There are many cases in which is necessary to kill animals to protect the environment – the case of comes to mind. In those cases we need to balance two wrongs against each other: the suffering caused to the animals and the destruction of the environment produced by them, possibly including the extinction of some species. Animal research is another example: we need to use animals to find the cure for human diseases. When we look at the ethics involved in those cases, we need to carefully consider whether the animals involved do suffer or not, and how much weight we put on that suffering.

Feral pigs are an invasive species in the California Channel Islands

Suffering is not the only relevant issue in the animal research debate-fake id from china

Some animal rights proponents argue that mental abilities are a red herring because the only question that is relevant in the animal rights debate is whether animals can suffer. This is not true for two reasons.

First, this is in direct contradiction to what other animal rights proponents say: that animal rights go beyond the right to life and the right not to suffer, and also include , for somebody’s else goals, etc. Then the question of whether animals have the mental capacities that enables them to know whether they are free or to care about whether they are being used are completely relevant.

Second, the way we treat a being is also determined by the intrinsic value we give to that being. For example, a species has an intrinsic value, so when a species goes extinct this means a terrible loss, and a deep moral wrong. Humans deserve respect not just because they suffer, but because of their intrinsic value. And that intrinsic value is based on our rich mental lives, our ability not just to suffer but also to be happy, to enjoy beauty, to find meaning in our lives. Therefore, mental capacities beyond the ability to suffer or to think intelligently are fundamental. It’s not just about humans, the same reasoning is used to give a dog more intrinsic value than the fleas that it carries in its fur.

But even if we accept the narrow framing that suffering is the only relevant question, suffering does not exist in isolation of all other mental functions. In particular, there cannot be suffering without consciousness because if there is no subjective awareness of the suffering, then it is not really taking place. Also, suffering, like happiness, acquires a deeper meaning for beings like us that can put it in a context of a life with a past and a future, in the middle of a society and a culture that creates a much richer context for any of our experiences.

Ultimately, the thing that worries me the most about the whole animal rights movement is how it has come to degrade the idea of what it means to be human by denying our rich mental abilities and making us equals to animals. Instead of elevating animals to human status, it degrades humans to animal status. Therefore, the animal rights movement is really a form of misanthropy, a radical anti-Humanism.

This month, the American Journal of Primatology published a freely-available Special Issue entitled, The entire issue is dedicated to the physical, psychological and physiological well-being of laboratory-housed non-human primates, and is notable for its cross-facilities studies as well as for the diversity of primate species that are represented, including rhesus and pigtailed macaques (Macaca mulatta and Macaca nemestrina, respectively), vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus aethiops sp.), and owl monkeys (Aotus sp.)

The Special Issue (synopsis provided in the ) is a compilation of review articles and empirical research articles from non-human primate experts that provide evidence-based information pertaining to social housing for laboratory primates and the utility of techniques to indicate chronic stress and related measures of well-being. With increased regulatory, accreditation, research, and public attention focusing on nonhuman primate well-being, the release of this issue is timely. The issue’s target audience includes those who hold scientific and/or management oversight of captive primate behavioral management programs, though it’s freely-available status provides a unique opportunity for the general public to become familiar with the types of research being conducted to improve the well-being of laboratory primates.

“The well-being of non-human primates in captivity is of joint concern to scientists, veterinarians, colony managers, caretakers, and researchers”

– Baker & Dettmer, Am. J. Primatol., 79:e22520, p. 1

The Special Issue is conceptually comprised of two parts: Pair Housing in Laboratory Primates and Indices of Well-Being in Laboratory Primates. The Pair Housing section begins with two extensive review articles analyzing the scientific literature surrounding social housing introductions and maintenance of social housing in macaques, the most commonly-studied genus of captive non-human primate in the U.S. Included in the first of these articles () is a set of recommendations from researchers at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center for many key issues involved in the management of macaques, such as partner selection, introduction, and special populations. The second review article by (2017) from the California National Primate Research Center “assists with harmonizing social management and research aims” () by highlighting the important fact that changes in the social environment can influence the physiological and physical health of captive non-human primates. Importantly, this article also takes into account how the change in social status may influence research goals.

The remaining articles in the first section present empirical research in which controlled experimental manipulations were conducted to identify the ways in which pair introductions are influenced by species, demography, partner selection techniques, and early interactions. Notable experts in primate behavior provide these important contributions, including (2017) from the California National Primate Research Center, (2017) from Wake Forest University, (2017) from the MD Anderson Cancer Center, and (2017) from the Washington National Primate Research Center in Seattle.

Vervet monkey (Chlorocebus aethiops sp.). Photo: Kathy West.

The second part of the Special Issue on Indices of Well-Being in Laboratory Primates presents, for the first time, research on a long-term index of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis activity: hair cortisol. Cortisol is a hormone associated with stress responsivity, and its measurement in hair is an established biomarker of chronic stress. In several empirical research articles in this section, hair cortisol concentrations (HCCs) are related to behavioral indices of well-being including alopecia (hair loss), anxious behavior, and self-injurious behavior (SIB). Importantly, many of the studies in this section rely on collaborations between several primate facilities across the U.S. The first three papers, by recognized experts in non-human primate well-being, describe risk factors and biomarkers for alopecia in rhesus monkeys. (2017) from the University of Massachusetts Amherst describe how relationships between alopecia and HCCs over an 8-month period are different for monkeys that regained their hair versus those that continued showing hair loss. Notably, these relationships were facility-specific. Related, (2017) from the Washington National Primate Research Center describe how prior facility origin influences rates of alopecia in monkeys that are currently housed at the same facility. Of particular note is the fact that prior facility effects were evident 2 years after relocation. (2017) from the National Institutes of Health describe a unique risk factor for alopecia: pregnancy. They relate this particular risk factor to higher HCCs and differential maternal investment in the neonatal period.

The following three articles provide novel information linking HCCs and behavioral indices of well-being across four facilities. (2017) from the University of Massachusetts Amherst describe a cross-facility study showing how HCCs relate to responsivity on a well-established, reliable behavioral assay for non-human temperament and behavioral reactivity: the Human Intruder Test (HIT). (2017) from the Oregon National Primate Research Center then describe how alopecia and temperament relate in monkeys housed in the same four facilities, importantly relying on a cage-side version of the HIT that minimized potential reactivity that may result from separation from the social partner. (2017) study the HIT in relation to SIB, providing new information between SIB and anxious temperament.

Rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) mother and infant. Photo: Kathy West.

The Special Issue closes with a review by (2017) from the Yerkes National Primate Research Center describing the utility of applying a behavioral analytic theoretical framework in studies of non-human primate well-being, with a special focus on the prevention and treatment of abnormal behaviors. This paper is unique in applying human clinical approaches to primatology, which represents a unique reversal of the translation of research methods.

Collectively, this Special Issue represents a comprehensive, evidence-based collection of rigorous research studies and detailed reviews from recognized experts in primate behavior that serves to provide new, timely, and critical information that will ultimately improve the welfare of these valuable research animals. Funding agencies, professionals working with captive non-human primates, and the public alike should familiarize themselves with these studies, as they highlight the dedication of the research community to continually improving the everyday lives of the animals that contribute important advancements to human health and to general scientific knowledge.